Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 1 decade ago

Do you think it's right and reasonable for?

a Jehovah's Witness to let an innocent child die, rather than allow a blood transfusion?

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    First of all, JWs do not want their kids to die. Unfortunately in situations like doctors would like to transfuse blood, JWs are greatly misunderstood. JWs want alternatives to blood, first to replace the volume of the lost blood, next, to have alternatives that would carry oxygen to the organs, and to stop the bleeding. JWs ask for those alternatives but unfortunately some doctors do not want to give those or some medical professionals still stick to the idea that blood is life saving.

    Here are some news just recently and the medical research will tell you that blood transfusion is not a good practice.

    Here are some news regarding blood transfusion . CAPS MINE.

    Blood transfusions during surgery may TRIPLE THE RISK of suffering a heart attack or stroke, scientists have claimed.

    Medical experts, who carried out a study at Bristol University, concluded red blood cell transfusions given to patients undergoing heart surgery could cause "MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY SOLVE".

    Research funded by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) found patients who received the treatment experienced THREE—FOLD INCREASES IN COMPLICATIONS arising from lack of oxygen to key organs.

    The RESULTS ARE AT ODDS with a widely held belief that RED CELL TRANSFUSION improves delivery of OXYGEN to tissues.

    Professor Peter Weissberg, Medical Director at the BHF, said: "This study shows the importance of putting such widespread beliefs to the test since it suggests that such transfusions may cause more problems than they solve.

    http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/heal...

    The research found patients who received a red blood cell transfusion experienced a three-fold increase in complications arising from lack of oxygen to key organs -- such as in a heart attack or stroke. This is a finding at odds with the widely held belief that red cell transfusion improves delivery of oxygen to tissues.

    The study, by scientists at the University of Bristol and the Bristol Heart Institute, showed that the risks associated with transfusion occurred regardless of the haemoglobin levels (the oxygen-carrying substance in red blood cells), age, or level of patient disability at the time of transfusion.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/07112...

    http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/st...

    It states in part:

    For years, physicians noticed that patients who received transfusions of banked blood were MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those who got NO BLOOD.

    Duke University researchers believe they know why — and how the problem might be solved.

    Donated blood almost immediately begins to lose a gas that opens vessels so oxygen and nutrients get to tissues, the Duke researchers report. Without that gas — nitric oxide — the vessels stay closed, blood can’t deliver its precious cargo, and patients founder, the scientists suggest in two articles published online in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    “It doesn't matter how much oxygen is being carried by red blood cells, it cannot get to the tissues that need it without nitric oxide," said Dr. Jonathan Stamler of Duke University, leader of one of the research groups.

    Blood vessels relax and constrict to regulate blood flow and nitric oxide opens up blood vessels, allowing red blood cells to deliver oxygen, he explained.

    "If the blood vessels cannot open, the red blood cells back up in the vessel and tissues go without oxygen. The result can be a heart attack or even death," he said.”

    “For the past 30 years, Dr. Estioko, currently medical director at St. John's Transfusion-Free Medicine and Surgery Center in Santa Monica, California, has performed surgeries on high-risk heart patients from all over the world, specializing in repeat operations and multiple valve surgeries.

    This is a higher level of surgical technique," Dr. Estioko stresses. "Not everybody can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are not so good, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field."

    Estioko spent 11 years in New York, where he was also professor at the Mt. Sinai School of Medicine. In 1990, he moved to California to be part of the Kay Medical Group in Los Angeles in 1990, a cardiac surgery group where he stayed for 14 years before moving on to St. John's Health Center.”

    Notice he said “NOT EVERYBODY can do this type of operation. In fact, many surgeons who are NOT SO GOOD, they don't even attempt it because it is more exacting, more demanding. It really attracts those who have more expertise in the field”.

    Blood Transfusion Is an Independent Predictor of Increased Mortality in Nonoperatively Managed Blunt Hepatic and Splenic Injuries.

    Original Articles

    Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care. 58(3):437-445, March 2005.

    Robinson, William P. III MD; Ahn, Jeongyoun MS; Stiffler, Arvilla MA; Rutherford, Edmund J. MD; Hurd, Harry PhD; Zarzaur, Ben L. MD; Baker, Christopher C. MD; Meyer, Anthony A. MD, PhD; Rich, Preston B. MD

    Abstract:

    Background: Management strategies for blunt solid viscus injuries often include blood transfusion. However, transfusion has previously been identified as an independent predictor of mortality in unselected trauma admissions. We hypothesized that transfusion would adversely affect mortality and outcome in patients presenting with blunt hepatic and splenic injuries after controlling for injury severity and degree of shock.

    Effect of early blood transfusion on gastrointestinal haemorrhage

    Mr S. D. Blair, S. B. Janvrin, C. N. McCollum, R. M. Greenhalgh

    Department of Surgery, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London

    Department of Surgery, Crawley Hospital, Crawley, Sussex, UK

    Keywords: Gastrointestinal haemorrhage • blood transfusion • hypercoagulation

    The effect of citrated stored blood on coagulation was studied initially in a pilot study where 25 patients with acute severe gastrointestinal haemorrhage had their whole blood coagulation measured using the Biobridge Impedance Clotting Time (ICT). This demonstrated that there is a hypercoagulable response to haemorrhage which was partially reversed by blood transfusion. Similar changes were noted in Kaolin Cephalin Clotting Times (KCCT). A further 50 patients were then randomized to receive, during the 24h after admission, either at least 2 units of blood or no blood transfusion unless the haemoglobin fell below 8 g/dl or they were shocked. In the transfused group nine patients re-bled compared with only one in the non-transfused group (P < 0•01, 2 with Yates' correction). Early blood transfusion appears to reverse the hypercoagulable response to haemorrhage thereby encouraging rebleeding and hence the need for an operation

    That's the prediction from leading expert Dr Ivor Cavill, who argued that a "blind faith" in the effectiveness of blood transfusion still exists despite growing evidence that it can do patients harm.

    A drive to reduce the number of blood transfusions is already under way across the UK, to help address the chronic blood shortage and reduce the risks to patients associated with transfusions.

    Other doctors support bloodless medicine, in which JWs support.

    http://www.englewoodhospital.com/medserv...

    JWs accept other blood alternatives and procedures to replace the volume and oxygen in the body. Unfortunately, other doctors are not familiar with those and are not given during times of emergencies for JWs.

    One news even stated “For years, physicians noticed that patients who received transfusions of banked blood were MORE LIKELY TO DIE than those who got NO BLOOD.” Are you informed of that?

    If a certain doctor would like to commit fornication with your own child first, before curing him, are you as a parent will abide by that? Are you sacrificing your own child’s life if you, as a parent, do not permit the fornication or are you protecting your own child as a person that you love? Do you want that doctor to make the decision for you and your kid?

    Just like fornication, the use of blood in the body is one of things we have to abstain from according to Acts 15.

    Soldiers, left and died, for a principle that they believe are right. They left their own kids and love ones. Does someone here scream at them?

    Fornication is a sin, and if one committed it, that person needs sincere and true repentance and God will forgive him.

    Do you think God will forgive you if you committed fornication and you are saying that fornication is NOT A SIN? And that it is okay to COMMIT FORNICATION when your life is in danger?

    Now, if you don’t abstain from blood, and but you truly repented and admitted that it is a sin, then God will forgive you. But if you say that having blood transfusion is NOT A SIN, nor repented, do you think God will forgive you?

    When you disobey God by having fornication or you ignore to “abstain from blood” and you WILLFULLY PRACTICE those sins, do you think you will be forgiven?

    Heb 10:26-27 state “For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition”

    Jesus our greatest exampler remained OBEDIENT to God until his earthly death.

    JWs believe in the Bible as the word of God and it is for everyone's lasting benefit to follow it. We follow the Bible's command to abstain from blood as stated in Acts 15:29. Eventhough we do not accept transfusion of blood, we accept other ALTERNATIVES to blood transfusion so that we can live. We believe that putting any sort of blood in our body is a serious sin that we can loose our chance of the life promised by God and Jesus.

    The Israelites, who ate blood, was cut off from God's people. See Lev 17:10.

    Lev 17:10 states “‘As for any man of the house of Israel or some alien resident who is residing as an alien in YOUR midst who eats any sort of blood”

    Notice ANY SORT OF BLOOD, so no faithful follower of God, eats blood of any sorts, animal or human. That’s why humans cannot drink or eat animal or human blood.

    The early Christians ate meat as long as it is properly bled, but eventhough 100% of the blood wasn’t removed, they were still considered abstaining from blood.

    The abstention for blood is not only for dietary reasons. If the prohibition is only for eating, that means a Christian can literally take a bath in a pool of blood, or the Egpytians at old times are right in “blood shedding” to cure their illnesses, etc. The Bible only tells us the proper use of blood, and one of those is for cleansing and forgiveness of sins, which was done by Jesus once and for all. Heb 9,10.

    An egg white and egg yolk are still eggs. JWs believe that white blood cells and red blood cells, the major components of blood are still blood. But if you fractionalize those cells into each individual components, it is a personal decision for JWs whether to avoid those or not. Others reason that a fraction of the red/white blood cells are now proteins, or water, and proteins and water are not blood anymore so they can take it. Others feel that fractions of let's say red blood cells maybe is still blood or came from blood, so they don't take it. It is a personal decision whether to accept those fractionalized component.

    The Bible doesn’t say abstain from nuclear bombs nor abstain from cannibalism, nor abstain from blood bathing but the underlying principles found in the Bible can help us determine that we have to abstain from those things.

    Fornication is a sin, and if one committed it, that person needs sincere and true repentance and God will forgive him.

    Do you think God will forgive you if you committed fornication and you are saying that fornication is NOT A SIN? And that it is okay to COMMIT FORNICATION when your life is in danger?

    Now, if you don’t abstain from blood, and but you truly repented and admitted that it is a sin, then God will forgive you. But if you say that having blood transfusion is NOT A SIN, nor repented, do you think God will forgive you?

    When you disobey God by having fornication or you ignore to “abstain from blood” and you WILLFULLY PRACTICE those sins, do you think you will be forgiven?

    Heb 10:26-27 state “For if we practice sin willfully after having received the accurate knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice for sins left, 27 but [there is] a certain fearful expectation of judgment and [there is] a fiery jealousy that is going to consume those in opposition”

    Jesus our greatest exampler remained OBEDIENT to God until his earthly death.

    Acts 15:20 - but to write them to abstain from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.

    Acts 15:29 - to keep abstaining from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication

    When did the practice of blood transfusion started? According to wikipedia.org that it started "The first historical attempt at blood transfusion was described by the 15th-century chronicler Stefano Infessura". So do you expect the Bible to explicitly speak against medical transfusion of blood during the 1st century when during that time it wasn’t practiced? Or have you ever thought that just quoting a GENERAL instruction, i.e., to “ABSTAIN from Blood” will suffice. How come in the Hebrew Scriptures it always state a SPECIFIC instruction to “do not EAT blood” but when it comes to the Greek Scriptures, it becomes a GENERAL instruction “abstain from blood” and NOT “abstain from eating/drinking blood”?

    The question then is, when Acts 15 states “abstain from blood” is it only for eating and drinking blood? At that time, early Christians, understood that “abstaining from blood” means not eating and drinking it because blood transfusion is not being practiced. If it was being practiced at that time, the instruction in Acts 15 did not EXCLUDE "blood transfusion". The early Christians also understood that they won’t use blood for medical reasons, that’s why they didn’t use blood to cure epilepsy.

    The point there is “eating and drinking blood” means the blood goes IN to your body. So what the Bible says is that we abstain from blood going IN our body. This means that you can use blood for testing, clean it, etc.

    If you are allergic to nuts, the doctor will only say, “abstain from nuts”, that covers everything, that is, nothing to be taken orally and to be transfused. If you have allergies to nuts, you’ll understand. You don’t force your allergic kid to accept nuts , do you?

    The instruction in Acts 15:29 is not only limited for eating animal blood. Why? Do you know of any faithful follower of God who drank and ate HUMAN blood? Do you know of any God’s faithful followers who DRANK or ATE blood from LIVE animals or humans? So it is wrong to say that you can use blood to be in your body if the there is NO LOSS in life.

    People also die,i.e. loses LIFE, because of blood transfusion (AIDS, wrong blood types, etc).

    Some misapplied Mark 5:25-34. … might on occasion have needs that would justify the breaking of these laws …

    Answer : Making an implication that it is okay to disobey Gods law when life is involved or if you are in serious health is wrong. Question for you, is it okay to worship Satan if you know that someone will kill you if you don’t? Notice that the woman showed great faith in Jesus. Aside from that, the Mosaic Law is going to end very soon so Jesus has showed compassion, and notice the woman trembled and got frightened, showing repentance and told Jesus the WHOLE truth. Definitely Jesus forgave her because the woman got healed. Today, most people who had blood transfusions do not show any signs of trembling and repentance eventhough the Bible clearly stated to abstain from blood. So remember obedience is better than sacrifice.

    If someone died because of wrong blood type transfused OR got AIDS and died because of blood transfusion, who will be accounted for the cause of death? The one who transfused the blood, the who one gave his blood or the one who accepted it?

  • 1 decade ago

    No, I don't. I frankly don't understand how a parent could watch their child die for lack of a common medical practice.

    I understand they have a strong belief. I used to work with a man who was shunned from his JW church because he allowed his 5 yr old daughter to have a transfusion to save her life. He lost all his community, lost his wife, everything having to do with his faith was gone in an instant.

    The thing was, he wanted her to live. He ended up with sole custody because his wife left him because of his decision. He had a big change in his views when his daughter's life was on the line.

    This doctrine is from Leviticus where there is mention of not eating the blood of any flesh. I don't see transfusion as eating...I just don't get letting a child die for this.

  • 1 decade ago

    i think you should do what you went to do on that my mom had a blood transfusion about two yrs ago and she die from it was bad blood so i can not answer that for your i wish could

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    That's freaking ludicrous! One of many reasons why I dislike people of religion.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • JC
    Lv 4
    1 decade ago

    No. I think it's stupid. I try to be tolerant and I think people can believe what they like, but I really can't bring myself to tolerate this idea.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    I don't see it as any of my buisness.

    We are all going to die. today, tomorrow, what's the difference?

    Love and blessings Don

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Don, that is a very cold answer.

    Source(s): It is an ethical dilemma; on the one hand you don't want to interfere between parents and children (would you want people to interfere with you while you try to pass your values on to your kids?); on the other you don't want kids to die. I have no easy solution. But no, I do not think it is reasonable.
  • No it isn't. This to me is just one of the many reasons why it is harmful to believe in god.

  • Jim!
    Lv 5
    1 decade ago

    It's their choice.

    No one really dies, they just move on.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.